In this series, I review each of the countries that has made a zero carbon commitment to date. Each article will follow a similar structure with a summary of the commitment, the factors that led to its creation, key policies to meet the commitment, and any challenges & controversies of importance when reviewing the scope, ambition and feasibility of a commitment. These articles are intended to give readers a good overview of key points rather than a complete examination of all issues with a given nation’s zero carbon commitment.
Commitment Summary
In June of 2017, the Swedish parliament voted to accelerate its decarbonisation pledge to reach net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045. This will consist of a minimum 85% reduction in emissions compared to 1990 with offsetting of the remainder.
Sweden has a history of successful environmentalism and has been rated in the top ten in the Environmental Performance Index produced by Columbia and Yale Universities. In 2020 Sweden came 8th out of 180 countries with exceptionally clean air and water alongside low emissions.
The country scored poorest in losses to ecosystem services (tree cover and grassland losses especially, which we will discuss further later).
Of course, Sweden’s green credentials have also been boosted as the nation that has given us Greta Thunberg. This teenaged environmental activist came to global attention as a leader of the school strikes movement of 2018. She also famously chastised world leaders during the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit in New York where she said:
“You have stolen my childhood and my dreams with your empty words”.
The 5 minute video is available on YouTube and linked below:
Measures to Achieve This
The new commitment is enshrined into Sweden’s Climate Act 2018 and is supported by a well-presented framework. The Act requires government policies to be in line with climate goals, an annual progress report be produced, a revised climate policy action plan every four years, and policy goals and budget goals must work together.
A climate policy council is also in place, consisting of members with high scientific competence in fields of climate, climate policy, economy, social sciences and behavioural sciences.
In 2019, the Swedish government unveiled its first climate action plan as required by the Act. This reportedly contained 132 measures put together by the Social Democrat-Green government and supported by the Centre and Liberal parties. Unfortunately, it appears the plan was not published in an accessible format but was instead submitted as a bill to the Swedish Parliament on 18 December 2019. Try as a I might, I have been unable to locate a detailed copy, but I believe it is buried within budgetary PDFs which Google Chrome appears unable to translate.
According to reports at the time, it included a focus on electric vehicles with parking incentives and investment in charging infrastructure. Beyond this the only other measure I can find to comment on at this time is the fact that Sweden is believed to have the oldest and most expensive carbon tax in the world. This tax dates back to 1991 and currently is $110 per tonne of CO2. This is primarily levied on fossil fuels used for heating and transportation and covers approximately 40% of all GHG emissions in the country.
Challenges & Controversies:
Whilst the 2045 target date is ahead of many countries targeting 2050, the scope of this target has come up for criticism. It appears that the land use and forestry sector is not included within these targets and yet Sweden generates a quarter of its total energy supply from biomass, more than any other EU country. Indeed, Sweden, along with France, Austria and Finland have fought to weaken EU accounting rules for emissions from the forestry sector in recent years.
On the face of it, burning biomass makes sense in Sweden. It is one of the most forested countries in Europe with 63% of all land covered in forest. However, whilst biomass is deemed a renewable energy source it only qualifies for this on longer timescales. In the short term burning biomass can be more polluting than coal. It can also take decades for trees to reabsorb the CO2 released by combustion, which in no way helps the immediate targets to keeping global warming below 1.5oC by 2050. Therefore, currently policies which are encouraging increased bioenergy may need to be reconsidered in the short term, especially as Sweden will be looking for domestic and international carbon sinks for the emissions it is not planning on reducing by 2045.
Sasha Stashwick, senior advocate at the Natural Resources Defence Council, put it this way: “the atmosphere doesn’t care about our accounting tricks. Burning wood for electricity increases carbon pollution for many decades compared to coal”.
The other main challenge at this time for the Swedish government is the criticisms it has received from its own Climate Policy Council in their 2020 report. The Council has stated that existing policies in the 132 point plan are not sufficient to meet the 2045 carbon neutral goal. Indeed, during the last four years the pace of emissions reduction has slowed, averaging less than 1% per year on average. This was not sufficient even to meet the previous target. The Council also notes that the 2019 Climate Policy Action Plan (again, which I cannot find), does not make any real effort to assess the contribution of different measures to the achievement of the climate targets. So far as plans go, not considering whether it will achieve your stated aims is certainly a concerning omission.
Current Assessment
Sweden scores highly in many areas of environmental performance and its 2045 carbon neutral goal reinforces a level of ambition we would expect. The framework, encompassing targets, action plans, reports and oversight by an independent council are all very positive. The question of bioenergy is a complicated one, and something I would prefer to see discussed more in the literature than what I have seen to date. Increased bioenergy will not help the climate crisis in the short term and may amount to nothing more than accounting trickery if it continues to be excluded from GHG emissions and targets.
The findings of the Climate Policy Council also warrant initial concern. Failing to consider what impact measures will have shows there is much more planning to do before we can have confidence Sweden is actually on track for meeting its targets.
The Pale Green Dot 
Pingback: Introducing Zero Carbon Profiles | The Pale Green Dot
Pingback: Zero Carbon Profile: Denmark | The Pale Green Dot